(2017-09-14, 06:44 PM)chuck Wrote: [ -> ]Well there are likely billions of people with birthmarks. I don't feel too far out on a limb going with coincidence as one possible explanation.
We are not talking about the random person with a birthmark.
Come on, you know that. Let's discuss this reasonably OK? Neither one of us is an idiot (I'm pretty sure). I promise not to treat you like one if you do the same for me. Deal?
We are talking about a person who remembers their prior life, and the places, people and things in it, and how they died, AND they have a birthmark that correlates with their mode of death.
Now I wouldn't call that person just one of millions with a birthmark, would you?
(2017-09-14, 08:42 PM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]I did try to warn this is what would happen. It became inevitable when Arouet joined the old tag team.
Be in no doubt what is going on here - plain and simple distraction. The subject of this thread is (was) "Why I am no longer a skeptic". Someone used the Stevenson research as a pretty good reason.
Linda claimed that evidence was weak and that even Stevenson said it was weak (something I strongly disagree with and posted my reasons why). The discussion then degenerated into semantic confusion and definitions of evidence. What is lost is any discussion of why Stevenson's work should be considered weak. Whenever I've seem alternative explanations I've been less than impressed - usually because they boil down to coincidence or families trying to make money or nebulous theories about unreliable memories.
So the tactic is: make a statement that the evidence is weak. Make another statement that scientists have standards of evidence and that this research (be it Stevenson, Radin, NDE cases or whatever falls outside the mainstream, materialist orthodoxy) doesn't meet those standards. Get into an argument about standards and definitions of evidence and forget about the cases under discussion.
Result: thread derailed, objective achieved.
Yup.
I hope we brought it back to something reasonable though... We'll see.
At least we have agreed that testimonial evidence is not be definition valueless. That's something. (see how low you can adjust the bar if you really work at it?) Sick
(2017-09-14, 08:42 PM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]I did try to warn this is what would happen. It became inevitable when Arouet joined the old tag team.
Be in no doubt what is going on here - plain and simple distraction. The subject of this thread is (was) "Why I am no longer a skeptic". Someone used the Stevenson research as a pretty good reason.
Linda claimed that evidence was weak and that even Stevenson said it was weak (something I strongly disagree with and posted my reasons why). The discussion then degenerated into semantic confusion and definitions of evidence. What is lost is any discussion of why Stevenson's work should be considered weak. Whenever I've seem alternative explanations I've been less than impressed - usually because they boil down to coincidence or families trying to make money or nebulous theories about unreliable memories.
So the tactic is: make a statement that the evidence is weak. Make another statement that scientists have standards of evidence and that this research (be it Stevenson, Radin, NDE cases or whatever falls outside the mainstream, materialist orthodoxy) doesn't meet those standards. Get into an argument about standards and definitions of evidence and forget about the cases under discussion.
Result: thread derailed, objective achieved.
Wouldn't it be more profitable to have one case in one thread and present it?
(2017-09-14, 08:06 PM)jkmac Wrote: [ -> ]OK so I'll give this a try via cut and paste...
Q- Just to be clear, I'm not talking about old standards. I'm talking about the most up to date standards.
A- Up to date? not really,,, still based on historical/traditional methods and views and still materialist at core (of course), so still "old"
I'm not sure if you're taking issue with this research or not.
Quote:Q- Upon what basis should they be loosened? And what methods should we use to determine what the new standards should be?
A- No idea how to fix. But it is too rigid today and based on experimental repeat ability which is not compatible with psi. Rules vary today between physics and psychology. No reason why psi couldn't be considered "soft" like psych and subject to similar rules.
Upon what are you determining that the standards are too rigid? And upon what are you basing your opinion that these standards are incompatible with psi? So far you have mentioned examples where it would be a challenge to get reliable evidence. That's different from saying that the evidentiary standards are incompatible with psi.
Parapsychology has followed methods pretty similar to psychology, but as I noted, psychology has been taken out to the woodshed recently when it has come to light how insufficient much of the employed methodologies are in that field. This has lead to unreliable results. Here's a paper by J.E. Kennedy discussing some of this:
http://jeksite.org/psi/jp16.htm
Quote:Q- Sure it should be taken seriously. But that means assessing how the evidence was collected. If there are known risks of error in the manner in which the evidence is collected that must be taken into consideration in assessing the report.
A- of course
So the question then is: what are the risks of error associated with the methodologies used in parapsychological studies? And if the risks are low then we may have strong confidence in the results. If the risks are high then we may have weak confidence in the results. Do we agree here?
Quote:Q-The recent history of science suggests that the rules need to be tightened, not loosened.
A- I shouldn't have said loosened. I should have said reviewed and modified to incorporate the reality (sorry pun..) of psi.
I'm not clear on what you are saying here. Methodological discussions should be independent of results. Right?
That is, they should be evaluated as to whether they are capable of demonstrating psi but not be designed in order to achieve a particular result. I think you have been saying that the current scientific method is not well suited to the study of psi. I disagree in many situations but that still leaves us with the question of whether there are suitable methodologies that are capable of proving reliable evidence of psi. And if so: upon what basis are we assessing that reliability.
(2017-09-14, 08:48 PM)jkmac Wrote: [ -> ]Yup.
I hope we brought it back to something reasonable though... We'll see.
At least we have agreed that testimonial evidence is not be definition valueless. That's something. (see how low you can adjust the bar if you really work at it?) Sick
Ahh, I see. No worries. I'll drop it. Thanks for the discussion.
(2017-09-14, 08:42 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]The question I see that needs a better answer is why you keep hedging? It not just you that's hedging. What's meant by: "We need to be flexible"? Why even bring up " Maybe we can't apply the exact same rules of rigor"? It seems over the years the one thing people that believe in psi want most is acceptance by the academic and scientific communities. That will never happen if the standard of evidence is less than rigorous. In other words the psi proponents need to speak the same language as academia and certainly the scientific community.
Don't you see that most psi simply doesn't duplicate the way more traditional science experiments do? That's just the nature of it. The stuff is subtle and elusive. Hell, that's why we are still arguing over it 100 years later.
I'm not trying to "relax" standards. I'm suggesting we use methods that are appropriate for the thing that we are trying to study.
You are trying to measure a gallon of water with a tape measure, when a measuring cup is much better suited for the job.
Now you can did in your heels and deny that fact and that's fine. You can stay right where you are. Exclaiming that it is all fake. If that works for you. Go right ahead. Matters not to me.
But here's the question- evidence rules aside, doesn't it occur to you that something extraordinary is going on when you hear these stories?
(2017-09-14, 08:53 PM)Arouet Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not sure if you're taking issue with this research or not.
Upon what are you determining that the standards are too rigid? And upon what are you basing your opinion that these standards are incompatible with psi? So far you have mentioned examples where it would be a challenge to get reliable evidence. That's different from saying that the evidentiary standards are incompatible with psi.
Parapsychology has followed methods pretty similar to psychology, but as I noted, psychology has been taken out to the woodshed recently when it has come to light how insufficient much of the employed methodologies are in that field. This has lead to unreliable results. Here's a paper by J.E. Kennedy discussing some of this: http://jeksite.org/psi/jp16.htm
So the question then is: what are the risks of error associated with the methodologies used in parapsychological studies? And if the risks are low then we may have strong confidence in the results. If the risks are high then we may have weak confidence in the results. Do we agree here?
I'm not clear on what you are saying here. Methodological discussions should be independent of results. Right?
That is, they should be evaluated as to whether they are capable of demonstrating psi but not be designed in order to achieve a particular result. I think you have been saying that the current scientific method is not well suited to the study of psi. I disagree in many situations but that still leaves us with the question of whether there are suitable methodologies that are capable of proving reliable evidence of psi. And if so: upon what basis are we assessing that reliability.
Listen- sorry but this back and forth stuff can go on forever. And I'm really not interested enough to keep at it until I die, which I'm pretty sure is how long this conversation will go on.
So you stick with your definition of evidence, and consequently reject all the obviously amazing things that are happening. You can label it as fake, or anomalous, or whatever you want. But that won't make it all go away.
Best...
(2017-09-14, 08:45 PM)jkmac Wrote: [ -> ]We are not talking about the random person with a birthmark.
Come on, you know that. Let's discuss this reasonably OK? Neither one of us is an idiot (I'm pretty sure). I promise not to treat you like one if you do the same for me. Deal?
We are talking about a person who remembers their prior life, and the places, people and things in it, and how they died, AND they have a birthmark that correlates with their mode of death.
Now I wouldn't call that person just one of millions with a birthmark, would you?
It really depends what hat I'm wearing. In this thread I'm wearing my "prove" is a very high standard hat. I'm all in on reincarnation. I think it happens. But it isn't proven in the same sense as hard science facts. It never is going to be. I don't want to keep repeating myself. It's apples and oranges. You are trying to screed concrete with a watermelon. It isn't going to work. We can't "prove" the afterlife. We can't prove the existence of the soul. It doesn't matter. It doesn't affect what many of us already "know." Linda isn't going to change. She accepts that psi in some form probably exists. But her requirements for proof are super high. She doesn't care what you believe. I don't think Linda is belittling anyone for believing in reincarnation. She's just is saying it isn't proven in the same way that some other things are. And it won't ever be. It's impossible to prove it to the same level. (Sorry for trying to interpret Linda. I'm sure there will be corrections.
)
(2017-09-14, 08:42 PM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]I did try to warn this is what would happen. It became inevitable when Arouet joined the old tag team.
Be in no doubt what is going on here - plain and simple distraction. The subject of this thread is (was) "Why I am no longer a skeptic". Someone used the Stevenson research as a pretty good reason.
Linda claimed that evidence was weak and that even Stevenson said it was weak (something I strongly disagree with and posted my reasons why). The discussion then degenerated into semantic confusion and definitions of evidence. What is lost is any discussion of why Stevenson's work should be considered weak. Whenever I've seem alternative explanations I've been less than impressed - usually because they boil down to coincidence or families trying to make money or nebulous theories about unreliable memories.
So the tactic is: make a statement that the evidence is weak. Make another statement that scientists have standards of evidence and that this research (be it Stevenson, Radin, NDE cases or whatever falls outside the mainstream, materialist orthodoxy) doesn't meet those standards. Get into an argument about standards and definitions of evidence and forget about the cases under discussion.
Result: thread derailed, objective achieved.
This thread reminded me of an old one on Skeptiko:
http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/ga...63/page-17
Whatever happened to Juicy Fruit Jackson Jr?